tv Piers Morgan Tonight CNN June 22, 2012 9:00pm-10:00pm EDT
good evening. truth, power and the media. colliding like never before in "the newsroom." aaron sorkin gave us "west wing" and "the social network." also jeff daniels. who plays the cynical anchor man. plus the hitmaker with a hit show, ll cool j, one of my favorite guests, joins me again. this time, he's opening up about his private life. what it really means to be a role model. first, the big story. hbo's "the newsroom." welcome to you both. so si was at the premiere of "te newsroom" in new york. lots of cable news anchors racing to see how accurate this was. and i think it's fair to say the general consensus was it was pretty darn accurate. people really enjoyed it. i found it -- very sort of pr s
thrilling reality check. to see it through the prism of your character, jeff. i'm curious about your motives here. i'm an unashamed "west wing" fan. it's a great privilege to have you here. what are you trying to achieve with the cable news june rgenre anything? >> i've got one goal. that's to interstaentertain thee for an hour. we are going for the exact same thing. >> are you though? because i always see underneath this stuff. you do like to make a point. some of the criticism in the reviews i've seen is not centered really around the show or jeff or anything else, it's always about sorkinisms. offensive new term for the stuff you put into these shows.
tell me about that. criticism you get. >> i do enjoy it. i enjoy language very much. it sounds like music to me. i enjoy autory. i grew up in a family where anyone who said one word when they could have used ten just wasn't trying hard enough. and i was the dumbest kid in my family. so i'd sit at the dinner table just listening to fantastic arguments like i was watching a tennis match. i grew to really like that. a point really well made. of somebody saying, but you haven't thought about it this way. what if this were to happen. as a writer, i grew up just wanting to imitate that sound. >> your character, will, make, jeff. he's goaded by the moderator. let's watch a bit of it.
>> i didn't identify ourselves by who we voted for in the last ev election. and we didn't scare so easy. we were able to be all these things and do all these things because we were informed. by great men. men who were revered. first step in solving any problem is recognizing there is one. america's not the greatest country in the world anymore. >> it was fascinating watching the room reaction. a lot of them sort of nodding along with that. because it was a great speech. a classic, if you don't mind me saying, sorkinism -- >> i don't mind. >> at its very best. all these statistics about where america's not number one anymore. made the point, it used to be a great country and it could be a great country again. right now, it's not the greatest country in the world. let me ask you a difficult question. when you said it, did you
believe it yourself? >> it was interesting to do the speech, to work on the speech. that came late. there were some drafts where it wasn't there. there was something that happened at northwestern that was referred to. and then i think it was one of the last couple of drafts before the pilot. >> last thing written. >> here comes the speech. let's see it. i remember reading it going, you may not like it, you may disagree with it, you know, for those who are patriotic and wave the flag and don't want to hear it. but there's nothing in it that's not true. and that went all the way -- each phrase, each thing that aaron has will say, it's all true. sorry to tell you, but it's true. so that really resonated with me. and to be able to say that. to be able to take words like the way this guy can put them together and throw it at the lens, throw it at an audience, it's -- for an actor, it's gold.
>> doing with will's character kind of what you did with president bartlett. he make these great speeches. when he's sitting at his desk or wherever he may be. and overtime you start to speak for what america should be like. it's a better world, if you like. so this way -- take issue with you, slightly devaluing what your objective is here. i slightly believe you actually do have a higher calling with these things. >> my point with devaluing is simply that. this show isn't asking anyone to eat its vegetables at all. really it's spirit is screw ball comedy. it's romantic comedy. it's heightened reality. it's idealistic. it's swashbuckling. we do just want people to have fun for an hour. but i'm writing about things i really, you know, believe in. and one of them is i'm a
patriot. i love america. that word "patriot" at least in my lifetime has been defined over a different way. as just somebody who flies a flag in front of their house. and that if you, for instance, criticize america, if you give a speech that jeff gives at the beginning of the show, that makes you anti-american. and that's something on "the west wing" and on this show that we fight against. >> i mean, aaron, you said, i feel like a lot of news outlets have abdicated their responsibility. i suppose critics would say, look, you've got to live in the real world here a little bit. if you go too high-falooting with your news coverage. if you try and do it in the purest sense what your character does in this show, it doesn't rate. especially if it's not big breaking news. i can tell you for a hard, unpalatable fact, that is true.
>> i know it's true. >> and it's hard. now you've had your toes dipped in our waters for a while. if you were running a news network, what would you do? let me just back up and say i don't have to live in the real world. i'm a fiction writer. i get to write. a democratic administration that can get things done. i get to write about very idealistic newsroom where these guys reach unrealistically high. so they fall down a lot. there's no question that the antagonists in this show is -- doesn't come so much in the form of a person, although that's the role jane fonda plays and that's the role that chris messina plays. it's ratings. that if we have a problem in this country with the news, it's at least as much the consumer's fault as it is the provider's fault.
but the show doesn't live in the real world. it seems like it does because it's set against the backdrop of real news events. we never do fictional news on the show. the characters are all fictional and not based on anybody. but it's -- they're constantly referencing done quixote, brigadoon, camelot. its parent company is atlantis. these are all imaginary lost cities. >> unabashedly romantic and idealistic. he excels in that. swashbuckling he said. that's -- and aaron told me when we started this, he goes, by the way, if you're in here to be likable all the time, it ain't going to work that way because you're going to fail. will is going to fail miserably. and we do. over the first season, it is a struggle. just like the struggle a lot of these tv journalists say they're going through. >> will is a quite spectacular
[ bleep ] from time to time as well, which is why i like him. >> thank you. >> take a short break. come back and talk about will the [ bleep ] and aaron the genius. [ male announcer ] this is the at&t network. in here, every powerful collaboration is backed by an equally powerful and secure cloud. that cloud is in the network, so it can deliver all the power of the network itself. bringing people together to develop the best ideas -- and providing the apps and computing power to make new ideas real. it's the cloud from at&t. with new ways to work together, business works better. ♪
done don quixot done don quixote. people don't come here looking for handouts. we are a nation of strivers and climbers and entrepreneurs. the hardest working people on earth. >> president obama speaking today. i'm back now with jeff daniels and "the newsroom's" creator aaron sorkin. hardest people on earth. is he slightly deluded, president obama? just taking up from your character's speech at the start
of the first episode? are americans still the hard effort working people on earth? >> well, i have no idea. i've never tested how hard other people in the world work. but it's good oratory. >> you didn't write that speech? >> no. but jon favreau, not the actor but the president's speechwriter, would tell you that barack obama is the best writer in any room that barack obama is in. i always smile when people have a problem with the teleprompter. he's the guy who wrote what's on the teleprompter. >> yeah. let's watch how this speech goes on. it's quite interesting what he then says. >> and nobody personified these american values, these american traits, more than the latino community. >> shameless. i would have thought. again, you could expect that to pop up in "the west wing" at some stage as a campaign
message. for a president to be standing there today, deliberately pandering like that to the latino community at a latino conference. >> right. >> am i being too cynical here? >> no, no, of course you're not. listen, he's at a latino conference. governor romney spoke there yesterday. i think. and they both need the latino vote. but i will say that i -- it's -- it's nicer hearing that than hearing about the lazy mexicans who come here who are tradraini our resources. selling drugs and shooting guns. you get up at 6:00 in the morning and see who's waiting at the bus stops. any time a new hotel opens in town, see who's snaking around the block three times waiting for a job. >> have you ruined it basically for every american president by making bartlett so likable, principled and everything else
that he was? have you basically ruined -- do all of them now get unfairly compared to bartlett? i've seen polls that bartlett would have made president time and again. >> again, i have the benefit of fiction. i don't just get to decide what bartlett says. i get to decide what everybody else says and does too. it's a lot easier for bartlett than for a real president. >> jeff, what is it like to work as an actor with someone like aaron's words? because he famously -- strides over everything himself. this is absolutely his stamp on almost every word you will be in the end acting. >> every word, yeah. you memorize every word. that's the drill. i was doing a movie with meryl streep once. "the hours." we were going to walk through a doorway. the director said -- they said, meryl, just say a couple things coming through the door. she said, what, i have to write
it too? i've never heard an actor say that. you heard david harris sitting there. he came up with two lines. why do i have to write it? that's how i feel. you've got aaron sorkin. a singular voice. you don't have a committee. you don't have executives. you don't have three or four writers on it. he's got every word on it. >> the same token, when i'm writing it, i get to know that jeff is going to be playing it. that emily's going to be playing it. john gallagher, sam waterston. that these people are going to be playing it. you don't need a half panel speech here. it's going to happen on jeff's face when he lights the cigarette. >> you had talked -- it was after the drugs bust thing that happened to you. you were talking about you liked to just disappear on your own. at the time, it would be with drugs. but you wanted to go to vegas on your own. just have a night in a clean hotel room as you put it. that is a strange thing to do.
why do you like that solitude? >> well, i liked it then because of the drug use. i didn't party with other people. i never did drugs with other people. i only did it by myself. now solitude is about writing. because so much of that process is thinking about what you're going to write before you write it. and i'm also a father now. so, you know, when i'm not working, i like to spend my time with my daughter. >> did you, like the beatles, did your best stuff on the drugs? >> you know what, i don't -- the last thing i want to do is make drugs sound good to anybody. bill maher once said drugs sure haven't heard his record collection. and i don't think i did do my best stuff while i was high. even if i had, if i was writing at shakespeare level high and the hackiest hack level
straight, i'll take not being high and a hack. >> have you arrived at a good place in your life now do you think? >> yeah -- >> the hard way maybe but you have? >> i'm the luckiest guy in the world. like i said, i love being a father. i get paid to do exactly what i love doing. exactly what i love to do for free. and i get to work with the greatest people in my industry. >> without being too intrusive here, according to the photographs i saw after the premiere, you are dating a beautiful woman from "sex in the city," is this true? >> every so often -- i am a single man. but every so often an otherwise brilliant woman will have a short lapse of judgment and agree to go out on a date with me and that's what happened with kristin davis who was nice enough to be my date for the l.a. premiere the other night. >> you make a very nice couple.
two out of three. it's a 156 week contract that gives me the opportunity to fire you 155 times at the end of each week. we'll wait a few months to make sure it's not a story bill carter can shove up my [ bleep ] >> how did you get my contract changed? >> i gave the network back some money off my salary? >> how much money? >> $1 million a year. >> you get back $1 million a year? >> yeah. >> you paid $1 million to be able to fire me anytime you want? >> $3 million. not any time i want. the end of each week. >> "the newsroom." i love your character. i think you've just landed -- i'm sure you feel this way as an actor. great role, isn't it? >> she's a dream. she's an incredible foil for -- if that's even the word -- for
will. through will's bluster and his screaming and yelling and treating everybody as if they're, you know, peasants, when the smoke clears, emily's still standing there going "are you done" and then she comes right in. she knows him better than he knows himself. he's still for reasons that will develop over the season, he's madly in love with her and hates her guts at the same time. >> they've clearly had a fling before. >> off camera, she's a dream. she's a pro. she works so hard. and the chemistry we have is just two actors listening to each other in front of the camera. she's just beautiful to work with. >> the worrying thing i saw. i said this to you. you're going to put us all out of business because you're so good. the new will when he gets reborn as this kind of cynical charging firebrand and it prompted this big debate over who you base this on. i suppose who you've based this on. lots of names. is there a hybrid or is there
one particular -- keith olerman has been probably throwing his own hat in the ring. >> yeah. the character's entirely a project of my imagination and then jeff's imagine nation. th this person doesn't exist on tv. will mcel voi is a moderate republican who says he's from a town outside lincoln, nebraska. he's pro-life. he supports the arizona immigration bill. and he's become famous and successful for assiduously hugging the middle of the road and not bothering anybody so if i was trying to base it on keith olbermann, i missed. >> jeff, you were -- got a "gq" cover to show you. it asked a great question. is jeff daniels the next cary grant? >> that's a great question? >> to which the answer was?
>> no. no, no. i believe -- correct me if i'm wrong -- there was only one cary grant. i think woody had said it. woody had kind of mentioned there are elements of what he does in "purple roads of cairo" that are of that kind of cary grant way of acting or some such -- >> you had a great line about it actually. you said, i was aware i don't have the looks for that movie star thing. when you put the camera on me, it just sucks the lens. i'm a good actor. >> i'll stand by that. yeah, yeah. >> i actually think he's the new spencer tracy. and that's who, you know, anytime i write something and it comes time to cast it, you sit around with the casting director, talk about who you're looking for, i always ask if spencer tracy is available. he never is. and then we -- and then we try to fill the role. and it's so -- it's impossible to find jeff daniels in hollywood. there's only one. he's the only person that we
wanted to play the role. would be an entirely different show if he wasn't playing it. >> what do you think is the art of great acting? you've written for great actors. what is the art of great acting? other than listening? >> listening is a big part of it. and i think it depends what actor you're talking about. i can tell you there are some things that an actor can't fake. an actor can't fake smart. an actor can't fake funny. so if you need those things, you need to find somebody who's smart and funny. with were talking about emily a moment ago. really remarkable, winning performance that she gives. i don't write a lot of description in the scripts. but when her character enters, i describe it a little bit as someone who doesn't need to act tough because she is tough. that frees her up to be kind of silly and goofy and be who she is. and that's exactly who emily is.
she doesn't feel like she's a woman in a man's world. >> she's a great character in it. jeff, when you look around now, great actors, who, for you, stands out, male or female, right now as pound for pound a great actor? >> you know, meryl. meryl streep is the go to for me. i told her. i've been lucky to do a couple movies with her. i said, i steal from you all the time. she's the best moment to moment. present. sam waterston came up with that word about meryl. present. she never gets ahead of herself. each take is different. you feel like she's not only acting but reacting to what you're doing. that's the key. too many actors act in front of a mirror. i'm ready for my close-up, mr. demille. which is i'm right here. the closer it gets, the more you make it about the other person. >> i've got two contemporary questions to ask you.
one for you, jeff. there was a remake of "dumb and dumber" that was supposed to be coming out. >> what have you member? >> that jim carrey buggered off. >> buggered off. i know this. i know that the four of us, the farrelly brothers, jim and myself, would all love to do it. especially jim. for a year and a half. we've hit some bumps in the road. my hope is that while i completely agree with jim's stance on it, that he's, you know, frustrated and throwing up his hands. my hope is there's a happy ending and we get to do it. >> he did gross $250 million. >> million or billion? yeah. it has the potential to be seen by a couple of people, let me put it that way. >> i've got to ask you, about facebook, whether you own any of the stock. >> you know what, i didn't. and i should have -- really, i should have bought one share of stock just for sentimental value. i forgot to. but maybe i will now.
and maybe -- i don't really know how this works. maybe if the street sees me buying facebook, suddenly there will be a rush. >> shares have been edging up -- >> starting to do well? >> yeah, starting to creep back to where it was before. >> oh, damn, i can't take credit for it. >> you may have missed the boat again. >> i'll figure out a way. >> aaron sorkin, thank you so much. jeff daniel, thank you so much. "newsroom" sunday on hbo. time? >> 10:00 p.m.? >> 10:00 p.m. terrific show. thoroughly enjoyed it. worried that will is going to come sit in this chair. yeah, he's better than the real thing. for now, i'm prepared to help you promote it. thank you, gentlemen. >> thank you so much. >> coming up next, ll cool j. about that prayer for whitney houston. ! ] [ male announcer ] your favorite foods fighting you? fight back fast with tums. calcium rich tums goes to work in seconds. nothing works faster. ♪ tum tum tum tum tums
we all need it. to move. to keep warm. to keep us fed. to make clay piggies. but to keep doing these things in the future... at shell, we believe the world needs a broader mix of energies. that's why we're supplying natural gas to generate cleaner electricity... that has around 50% fewer co2 emissions than coal. and it's also why, with our partner in brazil, shell is producing ethanol - a biofuel made from renewable sugarcane. ♪ >>a minute, mom! let's broaden the world's energy mix. let's go. scroll... tap... pinch... and zoom... in your car. introducing the all-new cadillac xts with cue.
that's right, piers, we just received word a little while ago that the jury in the jerry sandusky case has, indeed, reached a verdict. they have been deliberating over the course of two days. roughly 20 hours and 57 minutes. when finally the judge was informed that the jury has a verdict. this is a trial that has gone on for nine days and resulted in a number of witnesses as jurors in this case, trying to decide the fate of jerry sandusky, and, indeed, now they have. this is a man who of course turned a community on its ear, as well as penn state university, when charges were announced against him many months ago.
this has been quite an event that has turned a community on its ear. not only that, but the school itself, a school that is very well respected and with a football program that is so well thought of. this has really turned things around. this is the decision we have been waiting for, piers. >> susan, thank you very much. let's update people. breaking news. a verdict has been reached in the sex abuse trial of jerry sandusky. we just got word that the verdict is due imminently. cnn's susan candiotti has been addressing us from outside the sandusky courtroom. how would you describe the mood of the massed ranks of the media there? what is the general sense of the way the week has gone and the likely verdict here? >> well, i'll tell you, the mood right now around here is electric. there's no other word to describe it. this area of course filled with news media who have been covering this trial throughout. but you also have a lot of people from this community who are waiting to hear what this verdict is.
earlier this day, a very unusual thing happened. one of the defense attorneys, the lead defense attorney for jerry sandusky, was sort of unofficially holding court in the courtroom while the jury was deliberating. asrizos a group of reporters st talking with him, he said -- he was asked for his prediction. whether he would be surprised or shocked if his client were acquitted of all the charges. and he said in so many words, jo amendola, i would have a heart attack if my client was found not guilty, acquitted of all the charges in this case. of course there's been riveting testimony throughout. very powerful testimony from eight alleged victims who have accused jerry sandusky of a number of sex abuse allegations. in all, he originally was charged with 52 counts. but the judge eliminated some of them. so now it is down to 48 charges, 48 counts, among 10 alleged vict
victims. some of the most powerful evidence in this case came from the alleged victims themselves. but not only that, you not only had accusations from these people who testified that they were abused over the course of 15 years, but you also had very powerful testimony from two eyewitnesses, people who said they stumbled upon a sexual abuse attack or at least saw something going on. in one case, the assistant graduate student, mike mcqueary. and the jury looked over his testimony today. they also looked over the testimony of another so-called witness. and this was a janitor. a janitor who had said that he saw jerry sandusky and a little boy leaving a locker room shower late at night. and then within about ten minutes of that time, this janitor testified that a co-worker of his told him that he had saw -- he had seen something that was terribly
shocking to him. he was so shook up, this janitor testified, he thought the man was going to have a heart attack. jurors asked a question about that as well. because it was considered hearsay evidence. and circumstantial. and they wanted to have the instructions read back to them by the judge in the courtroom about how to treat that. so these are two key events that happened during the day time today. that seemed to indicate to us -- it may have indicated they have really gone -- they were making a lot of progress. because mike mcqueary's testimony involved victim number two. all of these counts are listed one by one by one. the janitor's testimony involved alleged victim number eight. might have indicated being there were ten alleged victims in all but they were really making a lot of progress throughout the day. now, just a little while ago, we learned that the verdict was in. we also understood jerry sandusky, the defendant in this case, is on his way to the
courthouse now. piers. >> susan, thanks very much. let's update people who are tuning in. we're waiting for the breaking news. there is a verdict now in the jerry sandusky case. we are expecting imminently. don't know what the verdict is, but we know the jury's been out for 20 hours. they spent the whole day today, into the night, after dinner, deliberating. i've been joined by lisa bloom. lisa, what do you make of what's going on there? >> first of all, this makes sense that this is the time for this verdict. this is a sequestered jury. it's a friday night. if they don't come back with a verdict now, they'll spend a weekend together. they've had enough time i think to really review and synthesize the evidence. no one can accuse them of coming to a snap judgment. >> the stuff they've asked for today has been very particular. it's been very focused on if you like, the third party direct eyewitness testimony that they'd heard. not the victims themselves. most of whom were young boys at the time. this is about the adults who witnessed and what they witnessed. how significant is that do you
think? >> well, that's an poimportant point. discount a little bit the accusers who come into court and you discount a little bit the defense because it seems as though they each have a story to tell. how do you contend with a third party witness who says, i saw this man with a child behaving inappropriately? that's the kind of witness a jury really latches on to. this isn't a case with a lot of documentary evidence. with photos. with videos. with, you know, pieces of paper. so that's the strongest evidence. and i think it's a good sign they were focusing on that. >> we're being joined by alan dershowitz, top legal expert. what do you make of this development? given they've been out for 20 hours, do you think this is a significant move in terms of a likely conviction? >> well, obviously, there were a lot of counts to consider. so 20 hours is not a long time. it really is reading tea leaves. the o.j. simpson case -- >> alan, let me just stop you just for one second. we're looking i think at live
pictures of jerry sandusky and his wife dottie arriving at the court tonight. presumably to get the verdict in person. that is happening as i speak. just to remind viewers tuning in, we're waiting for the breaking news. there is a verdict in the jerry sandusky case that we're expecting imminently. going back now to alan dershowi dershowitz. if they've been out 20 hours, they were very specific in what they asked for. want to go over that again. go over whether that o corroborates in their heads. what they've been asking for, a guilty verdict is more likely? >> i think a guilty verdict is more likely based on the evidence. the fact there was triang lation of evidence. there was an eyewitness. victim's testimony. and corroboration. 20 hours generally is consistent with a guilty verdict. remember in the o.j. simpson
case, very short deliberation acquittal. so it really is reading tea leaves. and -- but the pattern generally is when you get a very quick verdict in a case that's like this one, black and white, either he did it or he didn't do it, generally it will be a conviction, but you can't be sure. >> alan, stand by for now. let's go back to susan candiotti who's outside the court. susan, obviously, fevered ranks of the media waiting here. we've seen jerry sandusky and his wife just arriving. must be pretty electric, the atmosphere, i guess. >> oh, yes. i wish i could turn the camera around but we're in such a closed-in spot right now. this area which is a grassy lawn, a lawn in front of the courthouse here, is filled with spectators. people who have been, you know, lingering around all day and into the night to see what was going to happen. and there had been -- there
always are rumors. how long will it take? do you think it will happen tonight? and one of your guests indicated, remember, this is a jury that has been sequestered. it's only the second day, really. but, you know, they have a like liehood of working straight through the weekend. if they didn't come up with a verdict, they certainly were prepared to do that. for two days, they worked straight through. our understanding was working through at least a couple of dinners that we had. we're talking about seven women and five men. and the makeup of this jury is especially interesting. because seven of them have direct ties to penn state. or indirect ties. either they went to school there. their spouse did. went to school there. their -- they know someone who works there. or they are professors there. and you also have someone who actually had a tie to one of the witnesses in this case. someone who knew mike mcqueary's father. yet the judge questioned them, said, can you put all this aside and be -- and be open to all the
information before rendering a fair verdict? and each one of these people said that they could. and the prosecutors didn't want juries from this area , but the judge said he was going to do it this way. originally, we thought it might go on for three weeks to a month. he's managed to pull things together in nine days. both sides presenting their case in a very short period of time. >> it's certainly fascinating. the breakdown of that jury. it could add, again, to the unpredictability of this verdict. although people have been assuming that there may be a guilty verdict. when you look at the jury and the local state and the feelings that we remember when all this broke at the time and the attitude towards joe paterno, the great hero down there, you know, it's a very -- it's a very complex situation down there. and i don't think anyone could say for certain what this verdict's going to be. let's go now to the author of "friday night lights."
a hard look at america's football culture. very strong feelings about the sandusky case. buzz, obviously, we're expecting a verdict very, very soon. would you be confident that there will be a guilty verdict here? >> yes. i covered the courts for "the philadelphia enquirer." i'm positive the verdict is guilty. everything about this case has been quick and clean. 20 hours is not a long time. they've been very methodical. they knew they were close to a verdict. otherwise, they wouldn't come back friday night. mr. sandusky is a monster and has been guilty ever since the first victim testified. the defense did not cross examine well. amendola has been nothing but a showman. i've never heard of a lawyer who basically acquitted his own client by handing him the phone. which is what he did by bob costas. costas as a matter of fact thought he would only talk to amendola. i know this for a fact. amendola said, hey, do you want to talk to jerry sandusky? that's the kind of lawyer he is.
he calls it "all my children." he thinks he's funny. the only testimony they had was really his wife. and what do you expect his wife to say? and she corroborates that she's in the basement. he's doing this. he's doing that. the man is a predator. my concern is that when he is found guilty, that all the cameras will go away and the root problem, which is the culture of football at penn state, and how it ruled that university, nothing will be done. >> that is a serious concern. i think also the nature of the hero worship which went to somebody like joe paterno who clearly was involved in covering this up. i think also is a lasting stain on the reputation down there. let's go now to lisa. she's th former chief of the manhattan d.a. sex crimes unit. she's in new york. lisa, the general feeling from the legal experts i've spoken to is we're probably heading towards a guilty verdict. given the time the jury's been out and the kind of questions
they've been asking. would you agree with that? >> yeah, i would. generally, a fast verdict is a guilty verdict. i agree with allen about the o.j. verdict was an exception to that. it was shocking because of that. but i would expect that this is a guilty verdict as well. >> can you see any way that the defense could win the day here? is there anything about the way that they have performed in the week? i mean, i think that sandusky's lead attorney there, his behavior again today, saying he'd have a heart attack if his client was fully aquicquitacqui quite extraordinary statements on the back of his soap opera jokes earlier in the week. to me, completely inappropriate. have you ever heard anyone in such a serious case, in such a lead position, behaving no such a frivolous manner? >> i've never heard of any defense attorney making those kinds of comments about his client's probable guilt when a jury was out in a not serious case. more or less a a not serious case, more or less a case of this seariousnessseriousness.
i was shocked when i heard that today. >> we're watching earlier pictures of jerry sandusky and his wife arriving in court. we are expecting the verdict soon. today is the fifth month anniversary death of joe paterno. and it is a complicated case. lisa, the general consensus seems to be that we are looking at a guilty verdict. but of course it could go another way. because the relationship between penn state and the people involved and the jurors who all have strange connections, it's not as easy to call as it may be if it was completely divorced. >> i'm a die-hard believer in our judicial system, i'm not going to call him guilty until the jury does. we can all second guess what happened and we weren't in the courtroom. so we didn't see the quit
necessary hs testify and it's so important that the jury did that. i will say that i've represented many victims of child sexual abuse over the years in civil cases and i've seen change in our attitudes toward them. where as 15, 20 years ago, no one ever wanted to believe that chern were abused by a respected authority figure. now people get it because people have spoken out. i would be concerned that he's prominent in the community, but i also respect the jurors and trust them to come to the right decision. >> it seems to me that witness after witness had an aura of credibility about their testimony. >> how do you get around eight men coming in, obviously under extraordinary pain. people tend to lie the other way, they're really victims and say they weren't. they tend to lie and say they were. eight young men, isn't that the bottom line in this case? how do you get around that? >> yesterday we had this
bombshell of jerry sandusky's adopted son breaking silence to say he has been abused, he came too late for the jury to factor that in. >> but did it. because they're sequestered. but what does sequestration mean in the day when everybody has an ipad and a phone. >> that's an interesting point. what are they allowed to use? can they keep their phones and computers? >> well, that depends. susan candiotti may have a clear answer on that. usually no. but you can have phone call ws loved one. >> let's go to susan on that point. on this question of the sequestering, many people have said to me it's not likely that this jury have been unable to hear that fact tharks the adopted son of jerry sandusky claimed he too was abused. what do you know about the way he was being sequestered. is there a complete ban on any
phones, computers, television? >> piers, nothing at all. they cannot have a phone, they can't watch tv, there are no fuse papers, computers, forget about it. the judge even told them time and again, look, when you leave here tonight and going to the hotel, you can't call home. if you want to get a message to someone, you talk to someone on our staff here, and they'll be happy to make the phone call for you. so they're completely cut off from the outside world. so when that revelation was made yesterday, that matt sandusky, the adopted son of jerry sandusky, was now coming forward to say that he had been abused, theoretically, there is no way that the jury should be able to know that information. now, somehow could they? i don't see it being possible in this particular case. but remember, before this, they weren't sequestered. this judge allowed this jury to go home each and every day during the trial with the strict
admonition that when you go home you're not supposed to talk about this case with anybody, you're not supposed to wav the television or read the newspaper. that was probably the bigger danger if everybody was supposed to stick to that rule. if they didn't, they were supposed to let the judge know about it. but during the sequestration, they are not supposed to know about anything, piers. >> you're looking at live pictures outside the courtroom. jerry sandusky is inside now with his wife, dottie. we know the jury has reached a verdict and we are expecting imminently and the general consensus is it is probably going to be a guilty verdict, but nothing is a certainty in this case. let me go back to lisa bloom. obviously a lot of attention there. a lot of mounting excitement, this may be over, we may get justice and so on. if it goes the wrong way, as far as moem people, if we get an o.j. simpson on our hands.
>> an acquit al is the wrong way. that was the assumption in the casey anthony case. >> i was going to ask you. the court of public opinion has sat with jerry sandusky, as it did with casey anthony as it did with o.j. simpson, is it important to remind people to focus on the justice system and respect it. >> it's very important. because if you we don't believe in this country, we all have the right to defend ourselves. if we make the assumption that you're guilty because charges have been brought, we're sunk. >> on the phone is michael bo r ner the attorney for victim number one. what is your reaction to this development? we're expecting this verdict this moment. >> i'm waiting with bated breath as you can imagine.
the it mas it all be southern it should be a guilty verdict. i am watching the show now and waiting along with you, piers, to see what happens. >> it would be a major shock, i think, if jerry sandusky was acquitt acquitted, even his own lead attorney has said today in a remarkably flippant comment that he would have a heart attack if jerry sandusky was fully acquitted. so there is this consensus of opinion that he's going to be found guilty. but it would be a hammer blow to your client and to the other young men if he was to be acquitted, wouldn't it? >> i don't think it would be a hammer blow, no. remember, that the standard of proof in a civil case is much more lenient than it is in a criminal case. remember, the o.j. simpson case where he was acquitted and yet
find liable in a civil action because all you need to win with a preponderance of the evidence. here you need a unanimous verdict beyond a reasonable doubt. would it be upsetting? of course it would be. we hope that justice is served and this man is put away for life. that's our ultimate priority right now. but a hammer blow, i think, overstates it. >> mr. boni, thank you. we'll talk to dr. janet, a psychologist in new york. what is your reaction? >> like every one else, i'm waiting with bated breath but for the sake of the survivors of this horrible incident and i do hope that justice prevails and that frankly a guilty verdict is found. >> let's go back to susan candiotti. she's outside the courtroom. the breaking news of the imminent verdict in the sandusky
case. bring us up to speed. >> i'll tell you, all people have gathered on the lawn in front of the courthouse. not only news media, people in this community as well. time and again, whenever i've asked anyone what do you think is going to happen, they, you know, they gave their opinions. they think that this has been a terrible, terrible thing for all of them in this community and in this city in particular to have to endure. they just want it to be over and done with. they want to try to get things back to normal. they want penn state's reputation repaired as best they can. and mostly you still hear them talk about coach joe paterno, who remember when this happened, he was one of the people that mike mcqueary reported something back in 2001. and he later said in an interview, one of the last ones, the last one he granted before he passed away five months ago this day, that he said i wish i could have done more or would have done more. so this is really a night of
great anticipation in this area. >> and susan, just talk me through what the likely timing of the verdict was going to be. how will this work? >> that's very important. this judge is going to have a very tight rein on everything. the doors are going to be locked when that jury comes in. we have no television coverage and we will have to wait until everything is done before he unlocks the doors and lets people tweet and e-mail their messages about whethat the verd is. >> it's going to be dramatic and it is expected eminently. the jerry sandusky case is reaching a conclusion. the jury have reached a verdict after 20 hours of equilibrium racials. we are expecting the verdict at any moment. it will be held in secret in the court and when the judge is satisfied that he has finished
his process. we're going to go live to anderson cooper and "ac 360". >> good evening every one. there is breaking news tonight at this hours. we are awaiting a verdict in the jerry sandusky child rape case. 48 charges. originally there were 51 charges, three of them were thrown out. so there are now 48 charges for this jury to consider. seven women on the jury, five men. ten accusers in all, although only eight actually testified. and a new accuser has come forward, of course. jerry sandusky's adopted son matt. that is not something that the jury is supposed to be considering tond. a scandal the likes of which punxsutawney, pennsylvania has not seen in years. the jury deliberated for 21 years after a trial that was brief but wrenching when it comes to what